Footing the bill for inflated government benefits is painful for taxpayers, but it is only a financial loss. A deeper problem with government unions is their role in defending indefensible employees.
Government unions insist on contracts that make it next to impossible to lay off workers for poor performance. That makes sense from the union’s perspective — it eliminates a source of stress for their members. Who wouldn’t want a guarantee they will keep their job? But this job security hurts those who rely on government services.
The New York Times recently ran a chilling expose documenting abuse in New York houses for the mentally disabled. Most social workers care deeply for those they care for. Unfortunately, some do not. The government has documented cases of social workers physically and/or sexually abusing the mentally disabled they care for. This abuse includes punching, beating, and throwing the disabled against walls. But the government rarely fires abusive workers — usually they stay on the job or are transferred to another institution.
Why?
The New York Times explains that “in 25 percent of the cases involving physical, sexual or psychological abuse, the state employees were transferred to other homes. The state initiated termination proceedings in 129 of the [399] cases reviewed but succeeded in just 30 of them, in large part because the workers’ union, the Civil Service Employees Association, aggressively resisted firings in almost every case.”
Unions leaders are not evil. They do not protect physically and sexually abusive employees because they want to. They protect them because collective bargaining means they have to.
Under collective bargaining, unions represent every employee in their unit — whether the workers like it or not. With this power comes legal responsibility, the “duty of fair representation.” Unions have to treat everyone they represent equally. If they negotiate near-ironclad job protections for good employees, then they negotiate it for bad ones too — even those who beat the mentally disabled.
Government should serve the public, not the other way around. Government managers need the authority to remove employees who are incompetent or worse. Collective bargaining prevents that — another reason collective bargaining in government should go.
— James Sherk is senior policy analyst in labor economics at the Heritage Foundation.
good points.
However, assuming that the workers have a right to due process, without the union, who would help them assert the right? The employer (government) has almost unlimited resources to devote to firing the employee. The employee probably does not have the means to hire a representative.
Saying that the union should not have to represent these bad employees is akin to saying that murderers should not have attorneys because murdering is bad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Unions leaders are not evil... They protect [$ ex ually abusive employees] because collective bargaining means they have to."
If collective bargaining means having to protect $ ex ually abusive employees, then collective bargaining is evil. What we are is defined by the choices we make.
(By the way, I find it ironic that your offensive language filter won't let me quote you because its algorithm finds your language offensive.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe abuses documented by the Times are not just exmples of employee misconduct but crimes. This should not have been a matter of employer discipline at all. Report the abuse, which the state for the most part did not, and the resulting conviction makes termination moot.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAllan: Due process yes, the problem is that the the work rules make it almost impossible to fire anyone.
Most private sector employees are hired on an at will basis, which means the company doesn't have to give a reason when you are fired. Countering that, you don't have to give a reason when you quit either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Mr. Sherk's larger point, but I disagree with his defense of the union leaders in question.
The duty of fair representation does not require the union to take every disciplinary case to arbitration. It does prohibit union leaders from discriminating against non-dues-paying employees who might be in the bargaining unit. However, most unions make tough choices in their use of the arbitration process, because there are costs involved. The fact that this union is willing and able to take every case to arbitration suggests that they are extremely well funded (even for a public employees' union) and that they have no conscience.
Management shares some of the responsibility. The fact that the union makes it difficult to fire employees who commit felonies on the doesn't mean that management should stop trying.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Unions leaders are not evil."
Oh Puh-leeze!
Anyone who works to shield an abuser from the just consequences of his or her actions is evil, imho.
And let's face it, THIS has become the raison d'etre for unions, protecting the incompetent and the destructive.
And the other members of these unions the "good teachers" and "caring social workers", like the "good priests" all seem quite willing to turn a blind eye to the abusers and the useless.
If they were not all this nonsense would have ended a long time ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Unions leaders are not evil."
I'm going to jump on this one, too. If union leaders truly wanted to keep a clean house, they would have disciplinary procedures to rid themselves of the bad apples who are not doing their jobs. They don't. Furthermore, in right-to-work states, where in theory you have a choice to join the union or not, the employees who decide not to join find out very quickly that they are targeted for legal action. Teachers, for example, suddenly find themselves accused of bad behavior and are on the hook for the legal fees even when they are found innocent. Plus, they have their reputations trashed in the bargain.
It's an evil racket and the people who promote evil rackets are... evil.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf it is abuse then why are they not in jail? Forget firing them, arrest them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is a situation in NY where the manager of agroup home on 16th St, Curtis Walker has been abusing disabled men for at least a year. Too many cases like this keep popping up all of the time qand not addressed by the local Government or policy makers or even activists for the developmentally disabled. Anything that gets addressed is addressed only after a story hits the news.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse